On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 04:42:19PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 12/1/21 4:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:15:21AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> All error messages are now one of the following: > >> "argument %d must be a %d-bit unsigned literal" > >> "argument %d must be a literal between %d and %d, inclusive" > >> "argument %d must be a variable or a literal between %d and %d, > >> inclusive" > >> "argument %d must be either a literal %d or a literal %d" > >> > >> These messages were chosen to require the fewest changes from previous > >> messages while still introducing uniformity. This patch adjusts error > >> messages for some cases where this produces changed messages. > >> > >> Tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu and powerpc64-linux-gnu (-m32/-m64) with > >> no regressions. is this okay for trunk? > > We should have opnly the middle two of those messages. But, okay for > > trunk if you put this on some to-do list. Thanks! > > The last one is actually needed also, because we have at least one case > where the two supported values aren't contiguous.
Ah okay. Nasty :-) > We can do without the > first one, but that will affect quite a number of test cases, so agree > that this should be done later. (We already had a whole lot of tests > of this form.) We never say "must be a 5-bit signed literal", although we have instructions like that (vspltis[bhw] for example). We also don't say "unsigned 2-bit literal" or "unsigned 3-bit literal" because those are just silly (almost as bad as "unsigned 1-bit literal" :-) ) And saying "unsigned" keeps promulgating the confusion about what "unsigned" *means* in C. Segher
